disusedgenius •
Comments

Page 1 of 3

I hate winning Pandemic. Unless we're narrowly lost on the last turn I consider the session a bit of a failure.

There's some very good points on the visibility and straight-forwardness of board games that have these multiple failure triggers (see also X-COM, BattleStar Galactica, Shadows over Camelot etc). Part of what keeps me coming back to these games is how clear they are about the challenges, and how well they communicate the balance between them. Reply+2

Space Hulk was a decent enough adaptation in the end, it just took some patches. You'll never beat rolling dice of course but I quite enjoyed it for what it was (Ascension seemed like an improvement as well... haven't managed to play much of it yet though).

The difference I'd expect with Quest is that it's SO luck dependent - the entire point of the tabletop is that it can be a killer if you roll enough ones. But, at the end of the day, you'll have a laugh, joke with the Wizard player and beg him to let someone else roll on the magic etc. No way that translates to a game - you don't see the rolls or the tables, you can't blame anyone else or switch from your unlucky dice. Reply+1

Companies have to have multiple projects on the go though, they can't just carry on with PA until it's all over then switch focus - which is why it looks like this is a separate team with a different designer at the helm.

I can't see any reused assets in there whatsoever, no. It's just using the same engine.

1.5million for a game of this scale seems fine, I guess we're just starting to learn the limit of direct crowdfunding now that the initial surge is over. This is the reason that publishers are the main route for this kinda thing, and sadly is is probably why we don't get RTSs made on this scale any more. :( Reply-1

I really expected a retrospective on ME2 to come down harder on it. I happily replayed ME1 about 4 times, but when I tried playing ME2 again I felt like the curtain had a been lifted and it no longer held me. The levels were more boring, the RPG aspect was just a race to open either the red/blue options, the convenient waist-high cover everywhere was kinda laughable and the story felt more like a spin-off than part of an epic trilogy.

I mean, obviously all games are smoke and mirrors to a certain degree, and I had a great time with my first play through. However it's tricks only manage to work once, unfortunately.

That Suicide Mission track is astounding though, and imo the main reason why the ending is so loved. Reply+9

Hum, not convinced by this one yet: not a big fan of the look of the controls and the lack of strafing seems weird. I guess it makes sense for touchscreens but I'm not convinced it'll work on a regular gaming platform. Reply0

Obviously not a single strategy to cover all race combinations but, for example, when facing off against Zerg you need to block the ramps up to your start area with housing.

There's no option there. If you don't do that, then your miners are fucked and you're seriously behind.

Sure, there's basic concepts you have to work in - the creativity is in the details and where you push and pull for advantage. It's like getting excited over the difference between a 4-4-2 flat midfield and a 4-4-2 diamond formation. It's just a side effect of a game being played to an absurdly high level. Reply+1

Genuine question, not trying to be confrontational, but what's fun about repeating the same strategy, combined with mastering the amount of clicks/button presses per minute? I really don't get it.

What makes you think there's a single strategy? They vary per player style and abilities, map, opposing race and opposing playstyle. SC2 isn't really at the level where there's one strat to rule them all yet. And if there ever is, you can be sure that Blizzard will patch it. Reply+1

"What are these people doing?"
"They're gambling on who has the best cards."
"They're trying to kick the ball into the goal."
"They're guessing which box has the most money in."

They're fundamentally easy to explain, and you can get it just from watching. You don't need a breakout. Chess, on the other hand, you can't really explain in the same way, which is why Chess isn't mainstream. I'm not sure you can explain StarCraft in those terms either.

The trouble is with that kind of thing is that it's going to be more of a crutch for people to lean on at low levels. Manual control groups are just faster, more efficient and don't require you to navigate away from a battle to check your production.

Far better to offer addition training modes than to slow down the game with ultimately unnecessary GUIs. Reply-1

Ah bugger, I meant CoH! Just in terms of a RTS which concentrates on tactical engagements more than the macro housekeeping.

For me, Starcraft isn't Starcraft without the pressure and stress of not being able to do everything I want quickly enough. As much as I loved playing CoH it didn't leave my heart racing after a game half as often as SC does.

As always different strokes: at the moment I'm on a great roll in SCII and just waiting for the matchmaker to start giving me some good old pain again. :) Reply+1